Casting the joint statement as a "way to move forward" and calling
for an end to what Schmidt called a "divisive debate," Google's CEO
reiterated the message that preserving the open Internet is very important to
Google. He also requested that reporters ignore last week's story in The New York Times, which he
referred to as "completely wrong," and read the joint public
policy proposal.

In addition to making their policy statement clear, the companies specifically
and repeatedly said there was no business deal involved. The CEOs
also repeated that there was no place for paid prioritization of content,
and that while individual carriers could provide content to their own
customers, such content should not take away bandwidth or otherwise degrade
traffic on the open Internet.

Both companies called on the Federal Communications Commission to create
enforceable rules ensuring an open Internet with significant penalties for what
they referred to as "bad actors."

"We believe very strongly that the openness principles should be fully
enforceable," Schmidt said.

Their plan would also provide enforceable prohibition of any move by an
Internet provider against openness, Schmidt said. He said there would be no blocking
or degrading, and paid prioritization would be against the law.

Verizon and Google also reaffirmed their belief that the Internet should
remain open for any legal use and that private investment in the Internet needs
to be encouraged through regulatory flexibility. For this reason, both
companies have opposed overly detailed regulations that would reduce the
ability of the Internet to evolve and could result in other unintended
consequences. Finally, both companies repeated their belief that broadband
network providers need to have the ability to manage their networks to deal
with everything from spam and malware to traffic congestion and denial-of-service
attacks.

The Aug. 9 announcement also repeated a call for transparency in proceedings
of the FCC and other parties involved-something that has been notably lacking
in the FCC's closed-door negotiations with a variety of Internet players.

The
joint statement and the statements by Schmidt and Seidenberg also reiterated their
belief that wireless communications should be included in the proposed net
neutrality rules, although Seidenberg said he felt that the wireless arena was
slightly different from the wire-line world, with different technology, a different
state of competition and different interactive capabilities, and said he was
concerned that too many rules would stifle competition.

Google, Verizon Net Neutrality Plans Are Announced

title=New Enforcement Provisions}

Both companies shared a vision of what they referred to as "the
formulation of an enlightened, sustainable Internet policy for the United
States," in a January 2010 filing with
the FCC. In that filing, the companies stressed the necessity of preserving
openness, encouraging investment, providing users with control and information,
and keeping applications, content and services free from regulation. The filing
also suggested an important role for TAGs (technical advisory groups) for
developing best practices, dispute resolution and coordination with standards-setting
bodies.

In the Aug. 9 joint policy proposal, which was published simultaneously with
the press conference, Google and Verizon pointed out that both companies have
long been proponents of the FCC's current wire-line broadband openness
policies, and stated that they believe it's critical to ensure that consumers
have access to all legal content.

In addition, the joint statement called for new, enforceable prohibitions
against discriminatory practices that would harm consumers or provide harm to
competition. The statement said broadband providers should not be able to favor
particular Internet traffic over other traffic.

The two companies also called for consumers to be fully informed about their
Internet experiences, and said providers should give consumers clear,
understandable information about the services they offer and their
capabilities.

The proposal also asks for new enforcement provisions for the FCC
following the Comcast decision. Enforcement would be handled on a case-by-case
basis, and would include fines of up to $2 million dollars. The proposal does
not specify what sort of legal or legislative framework would give this power
to the FCC.

Other items in the proposal call for support for innovation, a special
process in which the Government Accountability Office would produce updates on
wireless technology to Congress annually, and support for the reform of the
federal Universal Service Fund to better support broadband deployment to rural
areas.

The goal of the policy proposal, according to Schmidt, is to ensure that the
Internet remains open and available for innovation. Rejecting suggestions that
Google is planning a suite of premium services for extra pay, he said, "Google
is dependent on the open Internet." Schmidt added that Google could never
have achieved the place it now occupies without it, and he said he thinks it's
critical for the next Google or the next YouTube to have as good a chance of
success as his company has had.